Thanks for the heads-up. This comes at an auspicious time, because
we're now starting on WebSocket implementation in WebKit, and the
implementation seems likely to someday ship in Safari, Chrome and
other WebKit-based browsers.
For what it's worth, we are not absolutely wedded to the details of
either the API or the protocol, but we feel pretty strongly about
delivering the basic functionality.
This proposal looks a bit more complicated than the WS protocol, so it
may take a bit to digest.
Regards,
Maciej
On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> All,
>> on the IETF Hybi mailing list there has been some discussion
> regarding the
> protocol that should carry WebSockets.
>> There was considerable divided opinions about the style of protocol
> that
> would be most appropriate and what level of features should be
> supported
> etc. That conversation ground to a stale mate as I think
> considerably different view points were involved.
>> So it was decided by some to prepare an alternate transport protocol
> proposal. At the very least, this proposal would serve better
> illustrate many of the concerns and ideas that are difficult to
> express in long email threads.
>> Hopefully, this proposal may influence the eventual design of the
> websocket proposal, or it might grow to become a real contender
> as an alternative (which currently it is not - lacking vital
> elements such as working implementations and wide peer review).
>> Anyway, I'd like to invite the participants of this list to
> give the BWTP proposal some consideration and review:
>>http://bwtp.wikidot.com>> I suggest reading the rational page http://bwtp.wikidot.com/main:rational> first before looking at the proposal: http://bwtp.wikidot.com/main:proposal>>> regards
>